SEATTLE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 25, 2014-- Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) today announced that it has reached an agreement to acquire Twitch Interactive, Inc., the leading live video platform for gamers. In July, more than 55 million unique visitors viewed more than 15 billion minutes of content on Twitch produced by more than 1 million broadcasters, including individual gamers, pro players, publishers, developers, media outlets, conventions and stadium-filling esports organizations.

“Broadcasting and watching gameplay is a global phenomenon and Twitch has built a platform that brings together tens of millions of people who watch billions of minutes of games each month – from The International, to breaking the world record for Mario, to gaming conferences like E3. And, amazingly, Twitch is only three years old,” said Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon.com. “Like Twitch, we obsess over customers and like to think differently, and we look forward to learning from them and helping them move even faster to build new services for the gaming community.”

“Amazon and Twitch optimize for our customers first and are both believers in the future of gaming,” said Twitch CEO Emmett Shear. “Being part of Amazon will let us do even more for our community. We will be able to create tools and services faster than we could have independently. This change will mean great things for our community, and will let us bring Twitch to even more people around the world.”

Twitch launched in June 2011 to focus exclusively on live video for gamers. Under the terms of the agreement, which has been approved by Twitch’s shareholders, Amazon will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Twitch for approximately $970 million in cash, as adjusted for the assumption of options and other items. Subject to customary closing conditions, the acquisition is expected to close in the second half of 2014.

Update #3: A very interesting post by The Information has outlined the reasoning behind the Amazon deal and, more specifically, why Twitch's deal with Google broke down. As you'd expect, it was about two things: money and control (power):

As the weeks went by, it became clear to the YouTube team that Twitch, with its big ambitions, had growing concerns about its ability to be remain nimble and relatively independent within YouTube. A couple of “integration meetings” between Twitch and YouTube’s product and engineering teams were then canceled. Six weeks after the term sheet was signed, the deal was basically dead.

After the deal broke down, Twitch's investment partners began seeking out new options - Amazon emerged as the most prominent bidder and promised to keep Twitch independent.

We chose Amazon because they believe in our community, they share our values and long-term vision, and they want to help us get there faster. We’re keeping most everything the same: our office, our employees, our brand, and most importantly our independence. But with Amazon’s support we’ll have the resources to bring you an even better Twitch.

So that's that.

There's not much to this one other than what The Information is currently reporting, but the publication is alleging that after a seemingly sealed deal with Google, Twitch is in late stage talks to be acquired by Amazon. Yikes.

The Google acquisition had been rumored for months, and was allegedly accepted by Twitch back in May, with VentureBeat later reporting in June that the transaction had "gone through" and an official announcement was merely a matter of time. Not so much, it seems.

Why Amazon would want Twitch isn't clear. The company has no messaging or social platforms, no live video or UGC services, and has never been closely associated with the gaming industry. Aside from, you know, selling video games... and cat food. And shoes. And power tools.

Amazon and Twitch would not provide comment to The Information on the acquisition, though a person with knowledge of the deal said it could be announced "shortly."

David's phone is whatever is currently sitting on his desk. He is an avid writer, and enjoys playing devil's advocate in editorials, and reviewing the latest phones and gadgets. He also doesn't usually write such boring sentences.

Comments

lulz_deliver

Sadness???

This would be the best news of the year!!!!!!!!!! Fuck Google's fucking censorship. You already saw a hint of what would they do to Twitch at the music censoring scandal lately. In the end, Google would KILL twitch entirely, adding the streaming services to Youtube and ruining a great community of people.

Amazon on the other hand has yet to show such behaviour.

It is a great day if those news are true.

Mark Curtis

Yeah Amazon has yet to censor someone on their public video uploading service that doesn't exist! Clearly Amazon won't try and bring it into its own fold of services, changing things in the process.

lulz_deliver

Doesn't matter if they couldn't. They didn't censor anything yet, and I trust much more a company like Amazon for this kind of stuff. In fact, I think that Amazon still has a loong way to grow.

I would bet that they won't change anything. They are smart, and value communities of people.

http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

Uh, what do they have to censor? Product reviews (which they do have a history of censoring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com_controversies )? Don't be so quick to embrace the arms of one organization simply because you weren't super happy about the prospect of another one.

http://ericravenscraft.kinja.com/ Eric Ravenscraft

All of this. Amazon is a terrible tech company with rapidly dwindling profit margins and a long track record at failing at everything except selling cheap stuff (which they do very well). Loving the idea of them buying Twitch is a bit like being happy if IBM buys Netflix because you hate Google+ integration on YouTube.

coip

Almost everyone who ever used YouTube loathed the forced Google+ integration. It completely ruined the YouTube experience and it's not surprise that Google had to finally relent.

SSDROiD

Boo-fucking-hoo, Google can do whatever it wants to its services, and as far as I've witnessed, I'm having trouble these days not finding a video where someone has commented "via Google+". Pretty sure if they hated it, they wouldn't be actively using it. Either way, though, let me make you rage some harder: I love it! Google+ integrate ALL THE THINGS!

coip

They're "actively using it" because it was forced onto users. Nobody with a brain was happy about Google forcing an intrusive ToS across all of their services. Huge privacy violation. "Google can do whatever it wants to its services". Yes, that's precisely the problem. The Justice Dept. needs to step in.

Avrohom Eliezer Friedman

I was happy about it. Pretty sure I have a brain. And simply by the law of averages, my brain is a LOT smarter than yours.

coip

A logical impossibility.

http://them3blog.wordpress.com/ Abel

Go back to WPC dude, your comments are kinda lame

coip

Not as lame as comma splices.

jt2074

Commas can be used to connect independent clauses. Go back to WPC dude and your comments are kinda lame each stand on their own. Therefore, a comma should be used to connect both, maybe, I think, I'm not sure.

No, it completely ruined the YouTube comment experience. Which was already ruined. You know how many people watch YouTube videos without ever reading comments? All of them. All of the people. Everywhere.

Amazon has used its customers as leverage in rights battles with studios, resulting in people losing access to pre-orders, it's helped Disney pull access to already purchased movies during Christmas because fuck you, as well as still not releasing an Android app for its Instant Video service in order to sell more Kindle hardware (which they make virtually no cash on, for a truly bewildering business model).

But yeah, Google's the bad guy for "censoring" videos that operate in an already murky grey area. Free the information, hack the planet, blah blah blah.

Chill the fuck out on the punctuation and learn to have a level-headed opinion. Both companies would have the potential to be bad. But only one of them has any expertise or experience in running a community-driven video streaming site.

coip

"only one of them has any expertise or experience in *ruining* a community-driven video...site".

Fixed it for you. You mixed up an 'n' for an 'i'.

http://ericravenscraft.kinja.com/ Eric Ravenscraft

Yeah, no one uses YouTube anymore.

Except, you know, literally everyone.

http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

I was once heard about a guy who didn't use YouTube.

he's dead.

http://them3blog.wordpress.com/ Abel

Why not just ban the guy? and we can actually argue with someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

coip

Only because it's a monopoly; not because it's good. And this is the exact reason why Google getting Twitch as well would be bad news.

SSDROiD

DailyMotion, Vimeo, Metacafe are just being ignored to fit your statement there, I take it?

coip

You can tally up all the videos on those 3 sites and they wouldn't amount to even a fraction of YouTube's content and traffic. That's called a monopoly.

SSDROiD

No, it's not. That's called a good service people like to use, as much as it pains you.

This is a monopoly:
"the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service."

YouTube on its own doesn't have any exclusive possession or any control of the supply. You upload your videos, they don't take them from you. You can just as easily upload your videos to Vimeo. In fact, many do. And that, good sir, is not a monopoly. A monopoly is when you have no other choices for a similar service. And I've just proven you do, so your argument is ridiculously incorrect, and I'm done discussing with you. Have a nice day!

coip

If you make your living from posting videos online, you have no choice but,to use YouTube because that is where all the content and viewers are. That's a monopoly. YouTube controls the online, user-generated video market. Try again.

Fatal1ty_93_RUS

Didn't know Google/YouTube forces people to choose that way of earning a living via making video content

coip

Such a naïve thing to say. No one is claiming they are slave lords. The fact that one doesn't "have to" make a living on the Internet doesn't excuse Google for YouTube being a monopoly. There is a reason Google backed out of this deal and that reason is because they knew the Justice department would've fined the hell out of them (rightfully so).

Lucas Laws

Considering that Twitch is still a separate entity from anyone else, blaming anyone except Twitch for the music censoring fiasco is a bit much.

coip

Right because if human history has taught us anything it's that the only way for one entity to have influence on another entity is for them to be the same entity.

PhilNelwyn

"You already saw a hint of what would they do to Twitch at the music censoring scandal lately."

Except it's apparently not due to Google, since they're allegedly not buying Twitch...

coip

Or it was an order from Google, Twitch obeyed, saw the backlashed and thought, "Eff this. Let's shop around some more and look for a suitor that doesn't suck acorns".

Zargh

An order from Google which required them to implement Audible Magic which costs money, instead of Youtube's ContentID which they'd need to switch to anyway after the deal closed?

coip

Yep. Google is that evil.

Coip is a fucking autist

You seem to have a not-so-hidden agenda. Amazon is just as bad as Google if not worse.

Oh look, the black helicopters are circling, too... lol... because THAT doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory -at all-. Of course it doesn't.

coip

Right, just like the notion that self-proclaimed "Do No Evil" Google would hack into non-customers' WiFi networks and steal data and personal information. Conspiracy theory? More like reality.

PhilNelwyn

"Hack"

Ok, you actually don't know what you're talking about.

coip

Actually, I do.

PhilNelwyn

Yeah... Of course you don't understand why I said this.

coip

I know exactly why you said that: you're a naïve Google apologist. Google hacked into WiFi networks of non-customers in Europe and exfiltrated private, sensitive information for profit, which is illegal, regardless of whether those WiFi networks were secured or not. Thus, they were fined.

Mark Curtis

Amazon has been guilty of tax avoidance, promoting cock fighting/dog fighting, horrible warehouse conditions, and numerous other things, but it's okay since they don't take wifi signals.

coip

Yet they never adopted a "Don't be Evil" mantra and never hypocritically proselytized it for a decade while being evil. I don't tolerate injustice by any organization, but I'll definitely target hypocritical injustice first.

Speaking of Google:
1. Wiretapping in Gmail (New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10...
2. Their proclamation that users have "no legitimate expectation of privacy"
3. Using deceptive tactics that violated its own privacy promises to consumers when it launched its social network, Google Buzz (fined by the FTC).
4. Privacy violations with Street View data (fined by the FTC)
5. Forcibly opting-in users into cooking tracking in Safari (fined by the FTC)
6. Google Play, without permission, harvesting and sharing personal information.
7. Secretly tracking iPhnoe users (fined by the FTC)
8. Independent of the infamous European Wi-Spy case, they have been found to have been intercepting WiFi data from routers in the U.S., harvesting passwords and emails and then lying about it (under investigation).

Mark Curtis

For an article about Amazon buying Twitch, you sure are talking about Google a lot.

PhilNelwyn

Always the same irrelevant replies...
Were you brainwashed or something?
I'm talking about the "hack" and you reply that I'm an apologist, like I think what they did is legal.
I just don't think it can be called a hack since networks were open, but that doesn't mean it's legal.
It's like saying that you've been carjacked after having left your car with doors open... No, your car was stolen and it's still illegal, but it's not carjacking.

coip

It doesn't matter if the networks were unsecured: it's not legal to infiltrate them and then exfiltrate personal data (this is the 'hacking' part: they had to go out of there way to filch that data). Thus, they were fined (nowhere near enough, though). Your carjacking analogy is a false analogy.

coip

Yeah, actually, I do.

PhilNelwyn

Flawed logic is flawed...

If they had the possibility of searching for another suitor, Google didn't force them, they could have turned to Amazon right away.

What you're saying actually sounds like Twitch had no problem with censoring, but given the backlash, they changed their mind. But then it means that they no longer censor music, right?

Your Google hate is ridiculous.

coip

My Google hate is not ridiculous. Being a Google apologist is ridiculous. Wi-Spy, anyone? There is no defense for that.

PhilNelwyn

But no one is a Google apologist here, we're all well aware that it was bad, but not an "evil plan from a super villain!"
And it's over now, they don't do it anymore, so get over it.

Now that Amazon snagged Twitch instead, it has nothing to do with Twitch because, thankfully, Twitch users will now be spared from having Google impose their crappy Terms of Services on them.
Wi-Spy is just one example of countess privacy transgressions by the hypocritical, "do no evil" Google. Google continues to spy on customers and non-customers alike.
My focus is on Google, not Microsoft, because Google is the most egregious offender and also the most hypocritical one, as the only company to publicly propagandize a 'do no evil' mantra while privately doing evil. Despicable. At least other companies don't pretend to be saints.

PhilNelwyn

"Now that Amazon snagged Twitch instead, it has nothing to do with Twitch"
No, it has nothing to do with Twitch. Period.
And Google has nothing to do with Twitch censoring music, like you mistakenly stated.

"Wi-Spy is just one example of countess privacy transgressions"
And yet that's the only thing you keep on repeating. I'm waiting for other examples... What does Google do that's so evil?

"publicly propagandize a 'do no evil' mantra"
Care to elaborate? Where did you see Google officially and publicly communicating about that?

"At least other companies don't pretend to be saints."
Yeah, all other companies admit that they do evil... * rolleyes *

coip

"And Google has nothing to do with Twitch censoring music, like you mistakenly stated". This has never been proven or disproven.

Oh, don't you worry: there are plenty more egregious Google transgressions where that came from:

1. Wiretapping in Gmail (New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/technology/google-accused-of-wiretapping-in-gmail-scans.html?_r=1&amp;)
2. Their proclamation that users have "no legitimate expectation of privacy"
3. Using deceptive tactics that violated its own privacy promises to consumers when it launched its social network, Google Buzz (fined by the FTC).
4. Privacy violations with Street View data (fined by the FTC)
5. Forcibly opting-in users into cooking tracking in Safari (fined by the FTC)
6. Google Play, without permission, harvesting and sharing personal information.
7. Secretly tracking iPhnoe users (fined by the FTC)
8. Independent of the infamous European Wi-Spy case, they have been found to have been intercepting WiFi data from routers in the U.S., harvesting passwords and emails and then lying about it (under investigation).

That's good for now. There are many, many more.

Are you serious? Google has been proselytizing their "Don't Be Evil" mantra since 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil), all the while violating it behind the scenes. Biggest hypocrites ever.
No, other companies don't admit to doing evil, but they don't spread a bunch of hypocritical, "Don't be Evil" propaganda along the way like Google does.

BoFiS

Of course the muting of videos was done by Twitch using a different contentID system than YouTube uses...so no reason to think Amazon would change or improve upon that anyway...but you can keep thinking they'll do something smart for once

coip

Agreed. Google is the absolute last company on earth I wanted to buy Twitch. I don't need that spyware ruining my video game streaming. If this is the case that Amazon (or, really ANY other company) is now coming in and stealing Twitch away from Google, this is cause for a massive celebration.

steve

*yawn* please. your OS has backdoors, your ISP tracks what you do, the government tracks your internet data, the games likely have backdoors as well. and you're concerned about twitch?

coip

No, I'm concerned about Google. They're the spyware kings leading the charge against individual privacy, filching data to monetize it. They suck and I'll have nothing to do with them.

Ethan G

"They suck and I'll have nothing to do with them." ...and yet you're here on a site dedicated to Android. Seems legit.

I can understand why people don't care for Google, everyone has their opinions, que sera sera. However, I struggle to think of any organization, particularly one as large as Google, as being pure evil or purely benevolent. I don't want a Windows Phone but I can appreciate Microsoft and Windows. I'll never own an iPhone but I respect that Apple does what they do pretty damn well. I don't think Apple is evil for the child labor production facilities that they've been shutting down, sometimes business is business.

Mario E Hdez

Agreed. Every comment coming from "coip" is basically, "Google Sucks, Google is Evil" etc. I mean I use all OS'es and like some more than others just as I like some companies more than others but why come to AP just to cry and complain when clearly no one takes you seriously? *shrugs* Such is the internet.

coip

I'm only here because I searched for Twitch news. Don't kid yourself.
No one is saying the tech world is that black and white: Oh, Google is pure evil so therefore Microsoft and Apple are pure angels. Wrong. There are shades of evil and Google is the most egregious offender because they're so hypocritical about it--for years propagating a "Do No Evil" mantra while secretly hacking WiFi networks in Europe among other violations.
Yes, it's called a social movement.

Gotta love trolls who embrace the foolish and demonic company that is Amazon for the simple sake of hating something else. lol. Never mind that Google would likely have kept Twitch free, and Amazon will charge $100/yr for it. Go ahead and tell me they don't have a history of monitizing and overpricing services into the ground....

So you're blaming google for a censorship scandal they didn't start to begin with? I mean if this turns to be true the responsible of said scandal would have been amazon turning your entire post backwards

CeluGeek

Brace for sadness? Well, I guess among AP readers maybe but among the Twitch community there will be A LOT of joy. Not being forced into Google+ and not having to put up with YouTube's draconian "the creator is always guilty" copyright measures are huge cause for celebration.

Zargh

Yeah, now they'll only have to put up a draconian Audible Magic system which indiscriminately mutes game music/media alike. And instead of a forced Google profile to use across services, Twitch channels will be forced into creating Amazon merchant accounts to get payment because the Paypal will be the first thing to go.

NinoBr0wn

There was never any reason to think that way, other than assumptions. And with Google already pulling Google+ out of some of it's own services, nobody knows how twitch would've been handled. And I feel like Google would be able to handle and provide for it much better than amazon.

mmisep

"Not being forced into Google+ and not having to put up with YouTube's draconian "the creator is always guilty" copyright measures are huge cause for celebration."

Yeah that "Login with facebook" button is all alright because it's not Google. And the "creators" should create their own music or maybe request permission to use licensed music.

blarg

Never mind that Amazon will (over) charge for the services. Yes, I'd much rather pay way too much money to use something then tolerate Google+ integration.

This should in no way make Twitch users happy... the community will dwindle significantly if Amazon starts making them pay.

http://www.twitter.com/dsilinski Darren

Only reason I was hoping for Google to buy Twitch would be that we'd finally get the option to stream it to Chromecast. With how Amazon has been treating Android lately this seems less and less likely.

Tobi

Look for Lakitu on the play store. It streams to the chromecast and works perfectly fine.

That's great and I appreciate the support, but it doesn't offer the same features as the official app that I can find - for example, to search by game. Plus you never know when Twitch might find a way to cut you off.

NinoBr0wn

So cast your screen. I gave up harassing twitch to update their damn app.

Jake

So… am I the only one confused about why Amazon would want to buy a live streaming website? Do they have a bunch of investor cash burning a hole in their pocket or something...

didibus

They seem to be pushing in the game area, they have opened up a bunch of game studios, so who knows.

nathan118

Lakitu. App. Streams to Chromecast.

dude

This time I'm glad Google didn't buy Twitch. It would just be a DRM and commercial platform for game corps and fuck the gamers.

Justin W

I think at this point the Twitch app for Android may just disappear, since Amazon has no (apparent) desire to have their video services on Android (the non-forked versions, that is).

Ian Fay

There's a third party Twitch app called Lakitu with Chromecast support.

John

Welp, twitch will be exclusive to kindle devices

http://www.Nave360.com Sebastian Gorgon

Well... I guess we'll never see Material Design Twitch app, apart from that meh.

He got bored watching videos on "Utube" and looking through "FacePage" Lmao

blarg

"Everyone"?! "Everyone" has acknowledged this? Clearly Chad hasn't. And well.. honestly, most sensible people haven't... because it really does look NOTHING like it beyond "the fact it's a UI means it is a rip off of whatever the very first UI was! (an abacus maybe?)"

coip

Since you don't understand the meaning of common expressions, I'll qualify it for you: "Everyone who isn't blind or in denial has already acknowledged this." Clearer?

darkdude1

Does it really matter in any way, shape or form? Humans have been copying other humans for thousands of years, who really cares? If it leads to innovation I'm all for it :).

coip

Plagiarism is universally loathed. Give credit where credit is due.

http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

An anti-circumcision, anti-Google, pro-Microsoft commenter on AndroidPolice.com? I must be dreaming. Please do tell me more about yourself.

coip

I'm not pro-Microsoft. Just anti-circumcision of infants (because I'm not a demented sadist who thinks it's okay to cut a baby's genitals without consent) and anti-Google for their egregious hypocrisy and privacy violations.

jonathan3579

Someone put on their big boy pants today.

John Doe

Maybe you also shouldn't let them drink milk what if they want to be vegans the horror they will go through to forget.

Transflux

I don't agree with him but at least they can stop drinking milk, they can't exactly get decircumcised.

John Doe

you can get plastic surgery.

coip

Plastic surgery cannot restore the mucous membrane that comprises the inner foreskin nor can it rebuild the frenulum and the lost nerve endings. Try again.

coip

No one is born a vegan. Everyone is born with a foreskin. The fact that you're equating the two, though, discloses your status as an idiot. One of them results in permanent disfigurement to the genitalia of a human being who didn't consent to it. The other leads to no such thing.

Avrohom Eliezer Friedman

Uh. To be honest. Not everyone is born with foreskin. There are plenty people that are born pre-circumsised. Even boys.

coip

Wrong. Everyone is born with a foreskin.

Avrohom Eliezer Friedman

Ever heard of Aposthia?

coip

A cultural myth propagated in antiquity, but even if it were so, congenital absence of foreskin also precludes forced infant circumcision so it's completely irrelevant to the argument at hand: circumcising infants is unconscionable.

jt2074

I don't think women are. Women are people too you know.

coip

Somebody needs to go sign up for an anatomy class. Women have foreskin too, sometimes called the clitoral hood, it is a prepuce nonetheless.

jt2074

Always called the clitoral hood, never referred to as foreskin. For a woman, it's only referenced as similar to foreskin on a male. It helps those like you so obsessed with the peeny to make imprecise arguments that are irrelevant to the purpose of this site. I think you're looking for circumcisionpolice.com.

coip

foreskin: "the nontechnical name for prepuce".
prepuce: "the fold of skin that covers the head of the penis or clitoris".

Try again. Both men and women are born with foreskin and both are entitled to keeping them.

jt2074

If you were foreskin, I would so cut you

coip

Probably because you're a terrible person.

Mikkel Georgsen

Aren't there any other things to do in Michigan?

John Doe

Oh so mental disfigurement is fine but physical is not right. Who said that people are not born vegans, aren't some people born gay? why not born vegan. How can you discriminate against vegans, How dare you? vegans have rights too.

coip

No humans are born vegan because human growth and development, by nature, revolves around newborns drinking animal milk--mainly, breast milk from human females. This is a scientific fact. It's also a scientific fact that some people are born gay and everyone is born with a foreskin. Got it?

jt2074

So if the baby consents, you're okay with it then?

coip

Babies cannot consent. Adults can. If an adult wants to do it, I fully support that. Adults imposing it on children, conversely, is despicable.

jt2074

This is why we need to lower the age of consent to baby. So that babies can start making their own choices.

Matthew Fry

There appears to be just about as much evidence that circumcision is beneficial as there is against.

Mikkel Georgsen

There are not a single peer reviewed scientific paper that it's beneficial - every single one has been refuted but there are several papers on damaged nerve endings and loss of sexual stimulation - those passed peer review so yea - you are 100% wrong.

John Doe

you are wrong to say he is 100% wrong.

Mikkel Georgsen

No - he is entirely wrong = 100%.

John Doe

"There are not a single peer reviewed scientific paper that it's beneficial" = wrong

That paper cites as benefits a minute reduction in HIV infection rates in Africa. Please tell me how that is relevant to newborn babies who don't have sex? Exactly. There is no benefit to routine infant circumcision. What are you going to do next, start arguing that we should remove breasts buds in baby girls so as to prevent breast cancer? You're demented.

Matthew Fry

I will provide a link to the American Academy of Pediatrics which says the benefits outweigh the risks but does not unilaterally recommend it. Which is kind of like there being evidence that it is beneficial. They also say "There is both good and fair evidence that no statistically significant differences exist between circumcised and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual sensation and satisfaction." http://m.pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.full
But yeah. I don't really expect someone who has no sources and moreso someone who makes absolute statements like "you are 100% wrong," to debate things logically.

Mikkel Georgsen

Besides the fact I'm an adult circumcised male so I can say that there IS a difference and loss of sexual feeling. But yea let's disregard actual testimony from someone who has tried both - that's logical also.

And let's trust a country where the circumcision is normal (over 50%) - that seems right. If there was a health benefit it would be implemented in countries that have higher health standards than US, but it's not.

Matthew Fry

Give sources to substantiate your claims or move on and terrorize some other unsuspecting article.

Now that is what you should lead out with instead of just telling people they are wrong. Thank you for the sources.

Mikkel Georgsen

Fair enough - that 'John Doe' guy just riled me up a bit :)

John Doe

I got you "riled up" LoL maybe because you make claims like this "There a not a single non-circumcised doctor that supports infant circumcision" without any scientific evidence to support it, just to push your agenda.

coip

You're the one advocating cutting the genitals of a baby without the baby's consent, and you're ironically charging others with "pushing an agenda"? Crikey. One side is saying "eh, let people make their own decisions" and your response is "No! Other people should decide what happens to the genitals of babies!" Do you realize how stupid you sound?

Babies don't have sex. Thus, this article you're keep spamming us with is irrelevant. Try again.

Mikkel Georgsen

You want more? The last one from 37 professors and doctors from Europe and Canada saying that the STD claims in US/WHO in regards to circumcision is completely false.

They also say that there is clear evidence of loss of sexual pleasure due to circumcision.

John Doe

This is called anecdotal evidence I thought I already asked you to look what that means up.

Mikkel Georgsen

Cherry picking where to answer now are we? Why won't you comment on the posts where your 'health benefits' are refuted by highly respected doctors and professors around the world saying it's all bias from US circumcised doctors :)

John Doe

yes and it is not bias when it is from places where circumcision is frowned upon and have the lowest percentages... sure.

Mikkel Georgsen

You mean places where we do not encourage infant mutilations (but do not outlaw it) and let people decide for themselves when they are old enough?

Yes that is a lot less biased than ones trying to justify the mutilations their parents did to them.

John Doe

There are clear medical advantages to circumcision and it is not a mutilation. It is a medical procedure and the fact that you refer to it that why shows how biased you are and how you like to "cherry pick" biased articles to support you claims not articles from respectable medical journals that have been peer reviewed .

Mikkel Georgsen

Not peer reviewed outside the pro-circumcision network in US.

And circumcision is by the defenition of the word - mutilation, go look it up.

The only medical advantage that has been proven is the smaller chance of UTI in male infants - something that is rare, and can be treated with mild antibiotics. This does NOT outweigh the _permanent_ loss of sexual feeling and the pain of circumcision itself.

It's from 37 doctors and professors across Europe and Canada - Canada which is in the same bracket as US in regards to circumcision distribution.

But again you'll just ignore the obvious fact you are wrong.

John Doe

Like I said Europe and Canada are as biased if not more than the US and WHO which is a world organization agrees with them. And saying permanent loss is "completely and utterly" incorrect. I am not wrong because the paper is not biased and respectable organizations agree with it.

Conclusions: This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality.

Mikkel Georgsen

So what we know now in this thread:

1) Circumcision does decrease sexual pleasure - confirmed by studies and by people who have had sex with and without foreskin.

2) The only benefit from circumcision is so minor that it does not justify mutilation of infant males

3) The WHO/US government have misrepresented the benefits of circumcision because it's the norm in US and do not want to upset people.

4) All studies related to circumcision and Africa are flawed and the control groups are void

5) Most countries in the world do not circumcise - this including the most healthy and happy countries in the world. There is also a correlation between violent countries and circumcision but that could support the findings of psychological impact of circumcisions but that's a whole other debate.

3) Really that is your argument, medical professionals do not want to upset people.

4) What did you go review their work? you are in no position to make such a claim.

5)Now you are just making up shit, The correlation is between poverty and developing nations that is where the violence is, has nothing to do with circumcision. Saudi Arabia is red on your chart but they are a happy country, UAE (Dubai city), and Kuwait because they are rich not because their males are circumcised. Oh and if you check your history most wars were started in these so called "healthy and happy countries" including a civil war in Ukraine right now.

6) There are medical reasons to it and I gave you to in number 1

That chart it useless we already know that 70% of circumcised males are muslim and nearly 100% of muslim mean are circumcised, the rest are jewish, african etc.

Mikkel Georgsen

1) Your personal bias does not invalidate an international peer reviewed medical paper - a paper that comes to the same conclusion to every single adult circumcised male I know.

2) You keep bringing up that invalidated number - try listening to the international medical community of both practicing doctors and medical professors that say it's complete bull - I even linked you that article

3) No I said government

4) Again I linked to this - you should learn to READ

5) LOL, you shouldn't be educating people on geographic or history. Happy and healthy = Northern Europe, not Eastern Europe. But do please tell me which country that has started the most wars the last 60 years? And if you think that the massive wealth of a few people outweighs the suffering of the masses (Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait) then you need to go back to school.

6) The rest aren't just Jewish, Africans - they are Catholics like Philippines, South Korea etc. - There is a common belief in Philippines that circumcision makes you taller and strong - I kid you not.

But you glossed over all the facts and just kept spewing your BS. Refute the links to the medical professionals or stfu.

John Doe

1) It is not bias the paper uses online surveys that is not a clinical test, its practically a poll and does not hole anything against the papers I already cited. We are talking about newborn circumcision not adult.

2)That article is a comment on the american pediatrics not on the papers I cited they did not conduct their own test to invalidate their argument just pointed out bias, bias which is also present in Europe and Canada.

3) Those government people are medically trained professionals in the CDC, NIH, and WHO. They don't just hire any one for those positions

4)Like I said that is a commentary on a paper that I did not cite and there is as much bias from them as well. They did not conduct their own clinical trails to disprove their claims.

5) You correlating circumcision with violence is completely wrong and have no evidence to support that but there is valid evidence that poverty is correlated to violence. And you should know that if you understand history very well. Also you said "healthy and happy countries" not northern Europe or west or east. So to your conclusion Ukraine that has low male circumcision percentage is unhappy and unhealthy, thus disproving you claim that circumcision is correlated to violence.

"massive wealth of a few people outweighs the suffering of the masses"

I did not say that I said that they seem to be happy and healthy Kuwait has a population of like 4 mil, I do not know who is suffering there but this still has nothing to do with circumcision.

6) That is why I said "etc." but the majority are muslims and jewish

I did refute them these are not scientific papers the only one that is a scientific paper is the NIH one and that talks mostly about adult circumcision and it is an ONLINE POLL. And Brian d. Earp is a philosopher he did not conduct is own experiment to refute their arguments that is not a scientific paper.

Factually wrong sites? The NIH is not factually wrong, if they find out that papers have wrong biological facts they remove it, so try again.

"the authors decided to create an online survey"
That article is a survey LMAO
"This knowledge hopefully can help doctors and patients in their decision on circumcision for non-medical reason"

"In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis" This talks about ADLUT circumcision which actually goes against your claim that a person can decide at an older age but the procedure gets more complicated and dangerous at an older age.

Finally, no where does it say "permanent" loss. Even in the title it says "decrease", which obviously their would be a decrease but it is something that a male can live with since it is a small difference and an online survey is not the best method.

coip

What is so difficult for you about understanding the concept of "permanent loss". When you're circumcised you permanently lose your ridged band. That cannot be gained back. Ever. That's also known as "permanent loss". It's not the GRE, bud. Pretty clear concepts.

coip

Circumcision is mutilation. Stop trivializing it: loss of outer foreskin, loss of inner foreskin, loss of frenulum, loss of ridged band. That's mutilation.
Mastectomies are medical procedures too with benefits. Should we impose them on baby girls too? Way more women die from breast cancer than anyone dies from HIV. Don't be a hypocrite now.

coip

Citing the pariah in the global medical world (AAP) is laughable. Every single other medical organization on the planet condemns infant circumcision. Way to cite the dishonest AAP though like it's the voice of God. Such idiocy.

Matthew Fry

You know, I'm just a future father that has read some, but obviously not all, information about circumcision. If I were a more prideful person, your fanaticist behavior and offensive words alone would be enough to poison your position in my eyes. @Mikkel Georgsen provided sources. You don't seek to educate, you seek to anger. You seek to polarize. I'm done with this conversation. I have read the sources @Mikkel Georgsen and my wife and I will discuss and decide. Just know that if all I had were your poisonous words I'd be snipping things off.

coip

The fact that you would even suggest, as a threat, that permanently disfiguring your own son's genitals out of spite because you don't like the tone some stranger on the Internet has taken in his passionate defense of human rights suggests you're not fit to be father. That's seriously messed up. I have no respect for that kind of vengeful thinking. Your future son has nothing to do with this and shouldn't be permanently punished for it.

I don't need to provide any sources for anything because logically there is no defense for infant circumcision. Nothing written in the scientific community on the pros of circumcision are relevant to babies. Spare your son and let him make the decision himself later on.

didibus

I never knew this was such a hot argument in America, but I have a friend part American and funilly he recently told me how he felt scared from being circumsised. I kind of ignored it as I never thought of circumcision as a real issue. So this argument going on here is kind of making me realised maybe why he was talking about it.

Anyways, as I know nothing of the issue, what are the reasons as a parent I might want to circumcised my child at birth? I thought it was only a religious tradition, so I'm very curious.

a

False.

Matthew Fry

Just shut the hell up. I'll trust the American Academy of Pediatrics over some asshole on the Internet.

Or you could trust EVERY OTHER MEDICAL ORGANIZATION ON THE PLANET, all of which condemn routine infant circumcision. Follow the money trail. Take the blinders off.

lljktechnogeek

Internet arguments about circumcision make me want to cut my own dick off. And people who call it "male genital mutilation" make me want to cut their dick off so I can use it as a replacement.

NinoBr0wn

Well you, sir, have a serious problem.

lljktechnogeek

I am looking up Lorena Bobbitt's phone number as I type this.

coip

mutilation: "to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts". See that circumcision scar on your shaft? The loss of inner foreskin? The missing or damaged frenulum? Your penis--also known as 'male genitals'--have been mutilated, by definition.

lljktechnogeek

Please kill yourself.

coip

Please educate yourself. You're naivete blinds you.

lljktechnogeek

Nope, sorry. You need to commit suicide.

I am not using hyperbole here, I honestly want you to die or at least be severely injured to the point where you are unable to communicate with the outside world. Your very existence makes me ashamed to be male, and only your suffering will heal this wound.

coip

I feel very sorry for you. I've never encountered anyone so pathetic before. I understand that circumcision without your consent has physically and psychologically damaged you, as you will never feel the full pleasure of the male orgasm because of the erogenous tissue that was stolen from you without your consent. But your denialism about it is quite sad.

lljktechnogeek

Don't care, please kill yourself.

coip

comma splice

lljktechnogeek

tldr

also, kill yourself

jt2074

Those are also independent clauses, I thought we covered this earlier

coip

Another comma splice. Go back to grammar school. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200 kroners.

lljktechnogeek

kill yourself

coip

It should've been "Kill yourself." Punctuation is important. People who trivialize suicide? Not so much.

lljktechnogeek

kill you are self

KlausWillSeeYouNow

Yes, heaven forbid people debate these things. -_-

I'm not saying this is the place to have a debate about such matters, but your extreme reaction is both ridiculous and childish. I don't see anything wrong with letting people talk this stuff out in the appropriate forums.

But hey, nobody's stopping you from cutting your own dick off, if you really feel inclined to do so.

lljktechnogeek

The problem is not that the debate exists so much as with the people who inevitably take part in the debate.

It's possible to have a perfectly reasonable debate on the merits or lack thereof of infant circumcision, even on the Internet. But 99.999 percent of the time, it's going to be a screaming ragefit by people like coip who interpret the act as a Crime Against The Holy Penis. (Speaking of which: coip, go kill yourself.)

Seriously, I know gay guys who spend less time thinking about dicks than he does.

coip

There is nothing to debate. Is it your penis? No? Then leave it alone. Quite simple, really. Try to debate that and you open the floodgates to all sorts of slippery slopes.

lljktechnogeek

you havent killed yourself yet

please fix that

coip

Grow up. There is nothing cute about trivializing suicide. You're not funny. You're not clever.

lljktechnogeek

that is not the sound of you bettering humanity by dying painfully and gruesomly

please kill yourself

PhineasJW

Judging from his comment frequency, you can apparently add UNEMPLOYED to that list -- unless the foreskin lobby is paying him to troll Android message boards.

coip

You mock someone fighting for the human rights of children? You're a terrible person.

jt2074

Those children applaud your efforts on a website for cellphones.

Humanity is saved.

coip

Misandrist.

jt2074

Is that in Kentucky?

Mikkel Georgsen

Mr. AP Staff - if you did any research you'd know that circumcision is bad, that's a plain fact. There a not a single non-circumcised doctor that supports infant circumcision - that should tell you something.

I recently got phimosis and had to get a circumcision - since I've tried both sides I can say with certainty that no circumcision is better on a day to day basis, especially when it comes to the parts with a special someone.

There are _NO_ reason outside something like phimosis to mutilate your child - if you do it for vanity, religion or tradition - that makes you a monster.

John Doe

Oh you checked with every "single non-circumcised doctor" on the planet, your research is impeccable. Now did you make sure they were non-circumcised?, did you give them a physical exam or a blow job. And you can easily get plastic surgery to restore the foreskin or through other non-surgical means, make your parents pay for it.

And plastic surgery does not fix the damaged nerve endings - but keep trying troll..

John Doe

How am I a troll? for pointing out your wild obviously inaccurate facts. You sound like those acne commercials on TV that tell you this is the number 1 acne cream supported by dermatologists. They probably have "evidence" to support that but they twist it to their favor. The family of the child should make that decision, just like deciding to raise the kid in a certain neighborhood, or to certain religious beliefs can affect a baby's mental health this is no different. When is comes to physical health well 58% of men are living fine with circumcised penes. It also odd that women overwhelmingly are the ones that are anti-circumcision, most men seem to fine with it and like I said those few that are not well they can reverse it and not do it to their kids those ending the tradition.

Mikkel Georgsen

Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house?

First you attack my claims after you tried to invalidate them but failed. Then you say 'most men' which is plainly inaccurate.

And you CANT reverse a circumcision as you DESTROY nerve endings and numb a lot more - this is just a fact and something I can attest to personally having tried it both ways.

Let's start cutting off an ear on kids - they can just get a plastic operation when they get older. Nice logic you got going there.

John Doe

You made a generalized statement that is not a FACT, why should I invalidate it when there is nothing to invalidate, when did you present any evidence for me to invalidate. Do you not know how empirical science works? and I was referring to the 58% of US males when I said most thats why I said "most men seem". Like I said the nerves are considered a physical impact not a mental one and nerves can be restructured with the advances of biology in stem cell research. You can not compare cutting off a person's ear to foreskin as there are no advantages to doing that only disadvantages and people pierce their kids' ears which can lead to infection, the earring can get embedded in the hole and if not done properly the gaping hole will never close.

Mikkel Georgsen

when you refer to 'most men' and do not specify any geo specific boundaries then it's to everyone not just US so again your numbers are useless. And we do not have the technology yet to rebuild nerve endings after they have been torn 18+ years ago, but keep dreaming.

There are no advantages to cutting off the foreskin - NONE - that's why I'm comparing it to cutting off an ear.

John Doe

really that's not what the WHO says who is a respectable organization and actually has facts to support its claims unlike you. The nervous system can be built with stem cells. Thats the whole point of stem cell research you are reverting the cell back to its early stages so you can replicate any cell from it, just like how scientists are currently growing a pancreas. You obviously no nothing about science and I get my facts from biological papers. Learn to read scientific papers that are approved by a respectable journal and are peer reviewed before you smear your worthless claims over the comments section of an article about Amazon buying twitch.

coip

Not once in human medical history has the tissue lost from male circumcision--outer foreskin, inner foreskin, nerve endings, frenulum, and the ridged band--ever been successfully regrown. Don't talk about science when you don't know what you're talking about you uneducated nitwit.

jt2074

I saw Wolverine regrow his skin after he was burned in a movie once. So it's technically possible.

coip

Not a ridged band, mucous membrane, and a frenulum.

jt2074

Well they didn't show that part, it was pg-13.

John Doe

Actually in stem cell research biologists use skin cells and revert them back to the pluripotent cell form which in this case is called induced pluripotent stem cell and used it to grow practically any cell from the organism.

John Doe

I said stem cell RESEARCH. Reading comprehension is key here...be careful. I also used the verb can not has or have. We have actually cloned animals, I know... its pretty amazing. But you should do some scientific research more often and educate yourself, it will enlighten you about many things; including reading comprehension.

coip

Let's just recap here. Your argument is that it's okay to cut off part of a baby's penis without his consent because there are scientists researching how to use stem cells to regrow skin? That's your argument? Really? So we can mutilate baby boys and tell them it's fine because people are researching how to fix it but it can't be fixed yet, nor is it even close to being fixed. so just 'hang on tight' for a few more decades and remember that it's all okay because in the future it may become all okay. That, or we could just leave their genitals alone and let them make the decision for themselves. Geezus.

Mikkel Georgsen

Hey Anonymous,

Before you start using words that are too big for you to understand you should know the WHO trails you link to were found to be ethical inaccurate as the control groups had higher rate of infection prior to the test. This is why the trails were abandoned 1/3 through. But keep spewing your BS - fact remains, there are simply no non-circumcised doctors who support infant mutilation.

A meta-analysis of data from fifteen observational studies of men who have sex with men found "insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other STIs."

You have yet to provide any evidence to this claim: "fact remains, there are simply no non-circumcised doctors who support infant mutilation." THAT IS NOT A FACT.

Mikkel Georgsen

Then disprove it - I've looked for ANY non-circumcised doctors that supports infant mutilation prior to getting my medically relevant circumcision and found none.

After exhausting over 100 doctors/clinics across 3 continents, I will extrapolate that to be the general consensus of the medical profession - if you can prove otherwise please do so :)

John Doe

Again anecdotal evidence. That's not how science works you have to support your claim with scientific evidence that shows the following claim to be true: "There a not a single non-circumcised doctor that supports infant circumcision" then I can invalidate your evidence by finding just ONE uncircumcised doctor that supports circumcision of newborns.

Mikkel Georgsen

Then find one :P

Most scientific facts are just theories that fit our current understanding - but from a statistical side, my 'fact' stands until you can disprove it. Saying that just one will disprove it is okay but that doesn't disprove it.

Try again.

John Doe

I am sorry but you should learn the scientific method. "From a statistical side" you have no evidence to support that statistic so you can not make it. Its like going to your boss and telling him 100% of twitch users that stream the last of us hate the rumored Google buyout with no evidence. Your boss would fire you, I know I would.

jt2074

That's about as effective and sound as saying, "Fact: you're a douche."

Now my fact stands until you can disprove it.

Mikkel Georgsen

You didn't conduct research across 3 continents personally to come up with it.

Keep trolling

jt2074

I sure did.

Disprove that I didn't.

Understand the fallacy of your logic yet?

John Doe

100 doctors are not all uncircumcised doctors in the world and 3 continents do not make up the entire world... not a Fact. And that is anecdotal evidence, please look up what that means.

Do some research. Circumcision has been proven to have numerous psychological implications later on in life. It not only is physical mutilation, loss of tissue that can never be regained, but it also leads to mental anguish. The face that you are trying to generalize U.S. males with all males discloses your ignorance on the topic. The grand majority of men in the world are not circumcised. Those who are intact very very very rarely elect to get circumcised as adults because they realize how much it sucks. Those who were circumcised as adults confirm this. There are no benefits to cutting off a part of a child's penis either, yet you seem to think there are. You're grossly misinformed regarding basic human anatomy and scientific evidence.

Like I said above "The family of the child should make that decision, just like deciding to raise the kid in a certain neighborhood, or to certain religious beliefs can affect a baby's mental health... this is no different. " and when it comes to physical health, biologically a human male and live a full healthy life without any foreskin.

Mikkel Georgsen

So can they without an ear - that doesn't mean we should cut it off when they are a child.

You reasoning is stupid at best. Why should the family have the right to mutilate their child? So you support the right to beat your child as well - because it's should be up to the family right?

John Doe

But there are no medical/biological advantages to cutting off a persons ear. And there are no medical/biological advantages to beating a child.

Mikkel Georgsen

Neither are there for circumcision - in fact there are loss of sexual satisfaction.

No, absolutely not should the "family" of a baby decide the outcome of that baby's genitals. How demented is that? You're equating the right to not have your genitals mutilated at birth with choosing what neighborhood to live in! Talk about a false analogy. Geezus.
You need to learn about circumcision and the male anatomy. First, circumcision had an exponentially higher rate of complications than not circumcision, including bridging, loss of blood, scarring, tissue loss, permanent disfigurement, and sometimes even death. It contrast, not circumcising leads to nothing. The long-term effects of circumcision also need to be considered, including decreased sensitivity, loss of erogenous tissue, and keratinization that has been shown to be linked to erectile dysfunction. Claiming that that is a "full healthy life" discloses your ignorance of the topic. Go take an anatomy class, preferably in Europe where they know better.

Romdude

Post some links for all to judge for themselves please.

KlausWillSeeYouNow

To be honest, David, you've spurred the pissing match (ha!) below by drawing attention to the man's opinions. In fairness, he didn't come here touting the merits of foreskin; he simply felt that Material was a Microsoft product.

That being said, you do seem to have a very interesting reader base here, and the debate isn't half bad. Have you considered making "foreskin" a tag?

turdbogls

bahahahahahaha

oh wait, you were serious? my bad.

Adrian Meredith

Lol keep telling yourself that

NunjaBusiness

See, that's what happens when real journalism turns into ... "NOT."

Nobody vets any sources or verifies anything anymore. They just write it and hope for the best. Then, when they turn out to have been wrong, it's just "whoops!." and no apology for being talentless hacks.

Floss

Or, you know, the deal was in talks and fell through. That it did not go through does not mean that they were wrong, just that both sides were not able to agree on terms.

http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

Uh, I'm guessing the talentless hacks at VentureBeat had a pretty solid source if they were willing to go out on a limb with that confirmation. It sounds like the deal with Google may have been done to the point of the final "signing of the papers" by the respective CEOs, but deals can and do fall through at that stage. Or they may have already been signed, and this could turn into a legal battle. I don't think anyone failed to verify here, I think it's a story that's taken a turn.

Samvith V Rao

Did you read your own post? "guessing", "sounds", "may", "think".
The idea is far-fetched.

http://ericravenscraft.kinja.com/ Eric Ravenscraft

The best part about this argument is that if Google doesn't buy Twitch, you get to say they were wrong about the initial report and if Amazon doesn't buy Twitch, you get to say they were wrong about this one. Nevermind the possibility that maybe, just MAYBE, Twitch talked to two companies. You get to sit on your high horse from the cheap seats and call literally everyone a liar and a scoundrel.

No matter what happens, sites that report on rumors lose to lazy arguments like this one, even if they're right. How nice it must be to comment from the sidelines.

You linked to words on the internet. That proves you are correct, diligent, and good at fact-finding.

Or, put another way, fuck right off.

Samvith V Rao

Jeez! What's with the hostility, mate? Oh well, it is the internet. Anyone having an opinion different than yours is obviously wrong/an asshole/retarded and needs to fuck off.

http://ericravenscraft.kinja.com/ Eric Ravenscraft

You don't have an "opinion different than" mine. You're insulting people I've worked with who do damn good work based on nothing but the fact that you are aware the phrase "yellow journalism" exist. If someone came into your office, looked around for three seconds, and called you and everyone you know and like a whore with no integrity, you know what you'd say to them?

That's right.

Fuck. right. off.

Fatal1ty_93_RUS

Wow someone is butthurt

Samvith V Rao

Ahh...You misunderstood. I referred you to those links merely to show you that your exalted opinion of journalism as being free from the human qualities of misjudgments is wrong. There is a possibilty - however slight - that the story could have been someone's imaginations run wild. I don't think I need to give you examples of the same. You're right. I should have expressed myself more clearly.

That being said, it is clear to me that you cannot express an opinion without getting confrontational and cannot complete a line of thought without using a profanity or getting vulgar. I will try to explain it in a language you will find it easier to understand:

Listen asshole, I do not give a fuck about your opinion about your friends. Know why? Because I don't know you. Just because you claim them to be hard-working doesn't make them so. The pope claims his priests don't rape children but everyone knows the truth, don't they? The fact that I never called into question their integrity and you jumped to their defense anyway tells me a lot more about them and you.

I hope I have made myself clear, you piece of shit. If not, you can go fuck yourself or wait...what was that?

Oh right - FUCK.RIGHT.OFF.

http://ericravenscraft.kinja.com/ Eric Ravenscraft

lol

Eoin Ó L

Not sure what there would be to be sad about. I'd rather Twitch be kept away from Google's hands. Google could take actions like forcing Google+ integration or merging Twitch with YouTube - Amazon don't have the capability of doing that. For people who like Twitch the way it is, it's surely more likely to stay that way after an Amazon acquisition than after a Google acquisition.

http://www.androidpolice.com/ David Ruddock

No, Amazon could just hide it behind the Prime paywall for many features. Surely they wouldn't do that, though, they're Amazon, not evil Google.

Eoin Ó L

Just curious, when you were reading my post, did your brain insert the words "evil Google" into it, tricking you into thinking that they were really there? Or were you perfectly aware that I used no such term?

coip

He's right, though. Google is evil. See the hypocritical "Wi-Spy" case from the "Do No Evil" company.

steve

it must be nice not having a brain. i mean, you have less to worry about, less stress... no obligations... must be so freeing to be an idiot.

coip

I wouldn't know, but judging from your writing skills and grasp of English grammar rules, I'd say you're in a pretty good position to comment on that, so I'll take your word for it.

Justin W

Or a job. Or School.

SSDROiD

Yeah, fuck Google for their excellent treatment of their workers, for creating products that are innovative and make our lives easier. Fuck them so much for doing these brilliant things. Oh wait...

coip

At the expense of the privacy of billions of humans--customers and non-customers alike? No gracias. Spyware shouldn't be praised.

cabbieBot

Unoriginal trolls and their impotent rage are everyone's favorite breed of loser! I was having a "meh" sort of day but now I realize: hey, it's not so bad, I could be a lobotomized dipshit that spends my time intentionally and relentlessly proving to the world that I have absolutely nothing of value to offer. Thanks, coip!

dude

Shut the fuck up cabbieBot, neither do you have anything to offer.

coip

The irony of your post is incredibly amusing.

WhyWai

you can disconnect from internet to enjoy full privacy instantly

coip

Yes, please do so now. Thanks.

Romdude

He was talking about you...

coip

No, I'm pretty sure he was talking about you.

http://www.geordienorman.com/ George Byers

Ok... and what does this have to do with android news again?

Zack Mills

Jerk.

andy_o

I know, right? Even worse, like 98% of the articles here have nothing to do with the police either. Talk about misleading!

Chris

Well there's a twitch app on android, and ya know, google makes android, so i see this as a perfectly acceptable article.

blindexecutioner

I hope it's true. Google ruins a lot of things they buy. Google has Youtube already so it would be nice to keep Twitch separate.

Wesley Modderkolk

Nothing wrong with a bit of competition.

BoFiS

Ugh, so much for Twitch imo... I see no reason to not just upload and watch stuff on YouTube where it gets saved forever rather than muted and then deleted later on...

Matthew Fry

Can't wait for them to remove the Android app and make it an Amazon ecosystem exclusive.​

Good. Amazon has great customer service anyway, unlike Google. I'm sure Amazon has been listening to the backlash of the Twitch community during the Google deal rumor. They'll surely keep Twitch independent.

http://www.scottcolbert.com/ ScottColbert

LOL, oh...you were serious.

WhyWai

you serious? among the two company, Amazon is more likely to restructure Twitch inside out. Amazon is all about exclusive ecosystem.

People tend to forget how much data centers amazon has. They are also a big provider of platform as a service. With the amount of bandwith twitch probably uses besides google amazon is a great choice.

king ding along

Big mistake by Google I think. They seem to be losing the touch recently. Say bye bye to Chromecast support and the Andriod app. Will be exclusive to Amazon marketplace.

king ding along

Arnt Amazon going to be releasing a YouTube competitor that's probably why they absolutely flew and snapped twitch up. Why would google worry about antitrust. Not like they've worried about it before?

Sir_Brizz

Good bye Twitch. Already can't handle their load. I see Youtube catching up to Twitch before vice versa.

Mei

Oh, was hoping Google would get it. Too bad Amazon, stole it from under their noses. Either that, or Twitch got too greedy and went with Amazon for more money. Amazon seems to want Twitch to push their gaming platform (Amazon Fire).